On 1 November 2018 at 06:45, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:30 AM David Rowley > <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 22 August 2018 at 19:08, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> >> wrote: >> > +#define PartitionTupRoutingGetToParentMap(p, i) \ >> > +#define PartitionTupRoutingGetToChildMap(p, i) \ >> > >> > If the "Get" could be replaced by "Child" and "Parent", respectively, >> > they'd sound more meaningful, imho. >> >> I did that to save 3 chars. I think putting the additional >> Child/Parent in the name is not really required. It's not as if we're >> going to have a ParentToParent or a ChildToChild map, so I thought it >> might be okay to assume that if it's "ToParent", that it's being >> converted from the child and "ToChild" seems safe to assume it's being >> converted from the parent. I can change it though if you feel very >> strongly that what I've got is no good. > > I'm not sure exactly what is best here, but it seems to unlikely to me > that somebody is going to read that macro name and think, oh, that > means "get the to-parent map". They are more like be confused by the > juxtaposition of "get" and "to". > > I think a better way to shorten the name would be to truncate the > PartitionTupRouting() prefix in some way, e.g. dropping TupRouting.
Thanks for chipping in on this. I agree. I don't think "TupRouting" really needs to be in the name. Probably "To" can also just become "2" and we can put back the Parent/Child before that. I've attached v11, which does this. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
v11-0001-Speed-up-INSERT-and-UPDATE-on-partitioned-tables.patch
Description: Binary data